Drunkenness along with insanity, mistakenly one of the fundamental principles of English criminal law that the accused (D) should only be held liable where he has sufficient capacity. Professor Hart famously explained this term as "a person is to blame only if he has the ability and fair opportunity to change or conform his behavior to the law." Most non-fatal crimes are believed to be committed when the accused was intoxicated. In some circumstances a D who is severely intoxicated by consuming alcohol or taking drugs may be granted a defense by the court. Provided this defense is very limited in its application as the courts do not want to encourage offenders to get drunk to escape liability. It focuses on situations where the D has committed the prohibited act, has not required the mental element, (mens rea) but is responsible for not possessing it due to his self-induced intoxication. Because intoxication can severely impair a person's ability to reason and exercise judgment, a D may not be able to predict risk or develop criminal intentions. The following discussion analyzes the three key distinctions drawn by the court in applying the intoxication plea:(1) Is intoxication voluntary or involuntary? (2) If voluntary, is the crime charged with "specific" intent or "basic" intent? (3) If of basic intent, is the drug involved one of dangerous nature? Before analyzing the three issues indicated above, it is important to underline the general limitation of the drunkenness exception. Inebriation is not and has never been a “defense” in itself. AP Simester suggests in his article “Drunkenness is never a defense” that drunkenness is all d...... middle of paper...... mens rea of ​​the crime. The distinction established by this case between basic crime and specific intent is obscure and confusing and therefore the court has often found them difficult to reach their final judgment in a particular case. The Law Commission in its report published in 1995 [no-229] concluded that the law was satisfactory and did not require reform. However it now lists intoxication as one of its reform projects in the second report published in 2007 and subsequently in the third report published in 2009. Finally, in conclusion, to avoid the above mentioned pitfall it has been suggested that the law on intoxication should be reformed with an adequate number of new rules. And it is to be hoped that, before consigning the law to the Majewski compromise forever, an attempt will at least be made to find a better alternative.